Jumpdude 0 #1 November 18, 2011 It appears that our colleagues out west are making some significant waves to put up a fight over airport access!!! Check it out! http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/17/town-talk-budding-business-hopes-teach-people-how-/Refuse to Lose!!! Failure is NOT an option! 1800skyrideripoff.com Nashvilleskydiving.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #2 November 18, 2011 Looks like a fight they are loosing Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJack 1 #3 November 18, 2011 QuoteLooks like a fight they are loosing Not necessarily. It sounds more like the consultants don’t really know what they are talking about. Once the FAA steps in I think there should be a good chance of the City and Airport Board changing their tune once they realize the obligations they have after accepting federal money. This hopefully will work out in the DZ’s favor. Good luck guys! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #4 November 18, 2011 Another story as of today. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/18/businessman-challenging-city-parachuting-rights/you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #5 November 18, 2011 This is another case of a city wanting all of the federal dollars, but not everything that goes along with it. According to the first article, the city stands to gain some $30 million in airport improvements while only spending $6 million in city dollars. It's a no-brainer that if you could get a $30 million airport for $6 million, and the bussinesses, aircraft and fuel sales that will generate, you would do it, but then they don't want to play by the FAA rules of fair use. What gets me is that they want to hide behind the same 'safety' concerns as every other city that tries this, 'There's not enough room for airplanes and parachutes at this airport'. The problem is that any airport big enough to warrant $30 million in improvements, and big enough to atttract business and revenue, is big enough for a Cessna DZ. Let's face it, if the DZ get's big enough that it doesn't fit at the airport, they're not going to hang out and make trouble, they're going to buy some farmland and build a private airport for the DZ. All of these 'battles' are so dumb. Everything happening here is to benefit the city, federal airport dollars, and the tax dollars the DZ will create, but the 'city planners' want to blow the whole thing for no good reason. What the hell is going on at the airport now that's so important you can run 40/50 loads per week? How about all the fuel sales to the DZ? What about the taxes generates by the DZ, and customers coming to the area? Is there a restaurant at the ariport? Last time I checked, skydivers are great at eating. The other point they're missing is all the 'operations' the DZ will add to the airport's yearly total, and what effect that will have on federal dollars. Hey city planners, here's a hint - the more operations your airport has, the more federal money you can get. In the end there's no good reason not to grant a short term lease to a DZ. Start with a 2 or 3 year deal, and see what the airport looks like before renewing. Just becasue you're planning on the airport growing and becoming one thing or another, it's not there now, and I'm sure the airport and the city could use the money the DZ will generate. I'm 99% sure that at the end of the lease, the city will see that it's not that hard to run a DZ on an airport (there are 100's of them running as we speak), and they'll renew. If they do get open, the DZ should do that gig where they mark all the bills they get with a skydiver stamp so every business in the community that takes in money that went through the DZ is aware of the DZs contribution to the local economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #6 November 18, 2011 QuoteAnother story as of today. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/18/businessman-challenging-city-parachuting-rights/ Good job by Mr. McCauley standing up and fighting the good fight. Reading the comments, he's up against the same typical uneducated biases that every new business goes through. I hope he takes it all the way. It appears to be a no-brainer, can't lose endeavor to me.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #7 November 18, 2011 Quote Quote Looks like a fight they are loosing Not necessarily. It sounds more like the consultants don’t really know what they are talking about. Once the FAA steps in I think there should be a good chance of the City and Airport Board changing their tune once they realize the obligations they have after accepting federal money. This hopefully will work out in the DZ’s favor. Good luck guys! No kidding that the consultants don't have a clue Quote But the consultants also said the FAA gives airports the ability to make reasonable rules and regulations. The consultants said they had concerns about a parachute company regularly using the airport as a landing zone. The airport property is small enough that any place a parachutists lands will be pretty close to a runway. That means that aircraft in the area will have to be notified not to use the airport during those specific time periods. Because the Lawrence airport operates without an air traffic control tower, that communication becomes a bit more difficult. The consultants said the city may need to consider setting aside a few days a year where the parachute activity could take place, but likely wouldn’t be required to allow it on a regular basis. They need to visit a few DZs that share space successfully with airplanes. They might want to visit a couple fairly busy uncontrolled airposrts too. Pilots don't need a tower to be able to communicate "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #8 November 18, 2011 VERY well stated Dave, the city wants the federal money on THEIR terms and are looking at the whole thing with tunnel vision. They no doubt had never considered a skydiving operation there and know little of the benefits that ALWAYS go along with having one regarding the $$ flowing into the area. Not to mention that Skydivers have as much right to the air space as anyone else, they pay federal taxes too. The cycles of operation a Dropzone adds to the overall number, increase the 'use' and allows for even more federal support...the fuel used will no doubt be 20 times as much as any single operator based there. It's a win~win if the city would just open it's eyes... I think with a little research the 'consultants' will understand that the federal funding means they don't get to set the rules, the FAA does. And that the extra dollars a dropzone brings helps the community, and there really isn't a significant safety concern regarding the running of an avataion related operation at an airport! I hope the USPA lends it's effort to getting this resolved with a quick and positive outcome for the DZO... Is there a city government email addy available that we might send along our thoughts to? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #9 November 18, 2011 >Plenty of air and ground for that. Probably - provided that 1) the aircraft stick to one pattern away from the area i.e. they always fly right traffic for 1/33 and left traffic for 15/19. Right now the standard is left traffic for all runways, so changing that would probably be necessary. 2) exit points are always well left of the airport. 3) students are located far enough away that even an errant student won't end up on an active runway. What might help a lot is to get a good example of an uncontrolled but busy airport that has a DZ coexisting on the property and use that as an example of how the two can coexist. Perhaps the city leaders really do think you have to "shut down" the airport to make it available for jumping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stearny 1 #10 November 18, 2011 I have jumped all of the DZs in Kansas. That is plenty of landing area.Stearny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #11 November 18, 2011 Maybe we should post these comments on that site... I did. Looks like they could use some +++'sBirdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpdude 0 #12 November 18, 2011 QuoteMaybe we should post these comments on that site... I did. Looks like they could use some +++'s YES!!!! Definitely! Post your asses off!!!Refuse to Lose!!! Failure is NOT an option! 1800skyrideripoff.com Nashvilleskydiving.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #13 November 19, 2011 Quote Quote Looks like a fight they are loosing Not necessarily. It sounds more like the consultants don’t really know what they are talking about. Once the FAA steps in I think there should be a good chance of the City and Airport Board changing their tune once they realize the obligations they have after accepting federal money. Quote Hi Jack IMO the "consultants know exactly what their doing. Their coming up with the answer that the city wants, to justify not letting a DZ operate at the airport. Just like a expert witness in court. Two different experts come up with opposite conclusions.The same consultant will get to design and inspect all future airport expansions and improvements as long as they are willing to come up with the opinion that the city wants regarding a DZ.The FAA has seen this song and dance from "consultants" and when the feds get around to making a decision I think it's going to be a no brainer in favor of the DZO. Lawrence is a college town and would make a great location for a DZ operation. I don't think there's going to be very much schedualed commercial traffic when their located so close to KCI. A shuttle bus from KCI would be more affordable for the students. Reading the comments at the end of the article it looks like there's one GA bully doing all the bitching. To bad he didn't use his own money to build the airport.K-RIP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #14 November 19, 2011 There is always one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #15 November 19, 2011 QuoteThere is always one. Or in most cases more then one moron. And the problem with people like this, no matter what the FAR's say, or the FAA they still think they are right..... see the bold text. You can try to reply to people like this and will not matter what is said or what facts are used to make clear they are not only wrong, but very wrong.... it will not matter. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/17/town-talk-budding-business-hopes-teach-people-how-/ Quotebliddel (anonymous) says… The problem with big commercial airliners is not so much the length of the longer runway (15/33), but rather the thickness and strength of the concrete. The big airliners weigh too much, and their landings would dramatically shorten the life of our Lawrence Runways. The problem with Mr. McCauley is not so much parachuting per se, though the additional operations he would bring to the airport would all occur on weekends, such as race weekends and KU sports weekends, when traffic is already very high. Another problem is that once skydivers are in the air, they pretty much own the sky. If LifeFlight helicopters gets a dispatch during that time, they must wait until the canopies are on the ground before they leave the ground. No big deal? Yeah, if you aren’t the wounded car accident victim who might DIE due to the delay. Active skydiving at Lawrence would probably drive LifeFlight (a valued airport tenant) away. The real problem with Mr. McCauley is that he is trying to catch flies with hydrofluoric acid, instead of honey. You can fix ignorance. You cannot fix stupid, and I don’t think you can fix persistent blatant open hostility either. Mr. McCauley seems to have come here to start a war, and not to promote safe skydiving. Starting a new business in Lawrence is difficult. Educating government types about risks and rewards is sometimes difficult, and often frustrating. But trying to do that by means of harassment, insults, and lawsuits against government officials, well… Mr. McCauley is simply not welcome in Lawrence, and never will be, unless he has a sea-change of heart. I hope he finds a better way. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #16 November 20, 2011 I'm reading lots of BS. Someone thinks they own the Lawrence welcome wagon, Nascar and Jayhawk weekends Thats only maybe 10-15 days /yr. With all that traffic Lawrence needs a control tower. To bad the Mcnasty's doesn't have the FAA in their pocket,R One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #17 November 20, 2011 Quote Someone thinks they own the Lawrence welcome wagon, Nascar and Jayhawk weekends Thats only maybe 10-15 days /yr. With all that traffic Lawrence needs a control tower. I live 20 minutes away from Lawrence and drive right by the airport on a regular basis. Last weekend was a Jayhawk home game. I drove by, I counted maybe 8 Cessna 172's parked along the tarmac. Some Traffic. 8 people flew their bug beaters in. You might see maybe 10 bug beaters on a race day, but there are plenty of other airports just as close that folks are likely to fly into as well.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #18 November 20, 2011 Quote Quote There is always one. Or in most cases more then one moron. And the problem with people like this, no matter what the FAR's say, or the FAA they still think they are right..... see the bold text. You can try to reply to people like this and will not matter what is said or what facts are used to make clear they are not only wrong, but very wrong.... it will not matter. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/17/town-talk-budding-business-hopes-teach-people-how-/ Quote bliddel (anonymous) says… The problem with big commercial airliners is not so much the length of the longer runway (15/33), but rather the thickness and strength of the concrete. The big airliners weigh too much, and their landings would dramatically shorten the life of our Lawrence Runways. The problem with Mr. McCauley is not so much parachuting per se, though the additional operations he would bring to the airport would all occur on weekends, such as race weekends and KU sports weekends, when traffic is already very high. Another problem is that once skydivers are in the air, they pretty much own the sky. If LifeFlight helicopters gets a dispatch during that time, they must wait until the canopies are on the ground before they leave the ground. No big deal? Yeah, if you aren’t the wounded car accident victim who might DIE due to the delay. Active skydiving at Lawrence would probably drive LifeFlight (a valued airport tenant) away. The real problem with Mr. McCauley is that he is trying to catch flies with hydrofluoric acid, instead of honey. You can fix ignorance. You cannot fix stupid, and I don’t think you can fix persistent blatant open hostility either. Mr. McCauley seems to have come here to start a war, and not to promote safe skydiving. Starting a new business in Lawrence is difficult. Educating government types about risks and rewards is sometimes difficult, and often frustrating. But trying to do that by means of harassment, insults, and lawsuits against government officials, well… Mr. McCauley is simply not welcome in Lawrence, and never will be, unless he has a sea-change of heart. I hope he finds a better way. Wow d00d, that's fucked up...and gee, no balls to sign it. ~some people understand that an anonymous criticizer isn't worth dick. But some of the sheep only believe what they read...those are the ones politicans love I understand where the passion comes from that the writer describes... it comes about when someone that should know better is fucking with what's right for their own personal agenda... and it directly affects your livelihood or opportunity to build a better one for your family. It's been done before so ya know it's worth the fight. It's the frustration showing when things are harder than they are supposed to be, because the power dogs figure with enough bullshit time & $ discouragement, you'll just give up and let 'em have their way. You know, the american way. I applaud McCauley for having a dream, and the balls to fight for it...What do you need Wm., how can WE SKYDIVERS help you with your fight? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #19 November 20, 2011 Quote What do you need Wm., how can WE SKYDIVERS help you with your fight? Yup! I'd be up for a long drive to sit in on an airport commission meeting to show solidarity and support your effort. Let us know how we can help.Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #20 November 20, 2011 QuoteThe problem with Mr. McCauley is not so much parachuting per se, though the additional operations he would bring to the airport would all occur on weekends, such as race weekends and KU sports weekends, when traffic is already very high. What have here is a group of people who want to try to play both sides of the coin. This FBO, Mr. Hetrick is on the public record, more then once stating to the City and airport board, he would stand to lose a great deal of fuel sales and skydiving operations would drive away the rest of the traffic. And he has made many claims along with the City that there is just too much traffic @ KLWC to allow skydiving operations there. These claims have been made repeatedly to the FAA by the city. Yet according to this news story written on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, that starting in 2008 the traffic has dropped off to "emptier skies over Lawrence". As you can clearly see they are trying to have it both ways. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/may/31/rising-aviation-fuel-prices-contribute-emptier-ski/ The city was asked to grant landing rights under FAR 105.23B on May 6th 2009.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #21 November 20, 2011 What many skydivers sadly fail to understand about an airport access cases, is that they think it is a local issue and if it's not in their area it has no effect on them or their place to jump. When in reality, it is about the national airspace as a whole, if it can happen in one place it can happen else where, and we see that all the time. Currently there are 12 open cases in the USA, this case is #4 on the list from what I've been told. That means there are 3 other cases that have been going on longer then this one, this is 3 yrs. old. Many people (jumpers) fail to understand just how long the process is when you have morons running the show on an airport board and city hall, remember the old saying "you can't fight city hall". Just ask Rich Grimm, Tsunami Skydivers or Pat Garcia, Skydive Sacramento, about how much money and time they have had to invest in into their cases. (a hell of a lot!) Too often the fight is too costly or too long and a dz folds, ask Jim Crouch, albeit I bet the new place is nice and better & without as much harassment. But how much did it cost him to close up and move a 30 or 40 yr old dz? Sometimes it's not worth the fight in the long run of the pocket book or time line to keep your business afloat, this is a tough business to be in to start with. Skydivers all over the USA owe a great deal of thanks to Mr. Pat Garcia @ Skydive Sacramento for forking over large sums of money (over 25K) to take his case to the part 16 level and dealing with harassment for over 4 yrs. He won a huge one on behalf of all skydivers and deserves our full support. http://www.uspa.org/AboutUSPA/USPAinAction/USPAAirportAccessWins/tabid/547/Default.aspx The other part of all this many fail to understand is the most important player in all of these cases..... Mr. Randy Ottinger @ USPA [email protected] and his ongoing efforts on behalf of all skydivers & skydiving operators, this is most likely hands down the most important job @ USPA HQ, this man has done a great deal of things to keep us in the air and to reduce the over all cost to operate jump aircraft, he is a huge asset to our association. Every member of USPA owes this man a great deal, send him a thank you note and gift card for X-mas or a jump ticket @ Jim Crouch's dz. Another issue we have to deal with is the anti skydiving people among our own ranks, those who spout off at the mouth about where skydiving belongs and where it should take place. These dzo's can also be FBO's and enjoy the use of the same type of airspace,http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3693965#3693965 class E airspace, yet they seek to harm others who wish to enjoy & exercise the same rights as those dzo's. These DZO's even show up to city hall meetings and or call & write airport boards to advise them on how to help run off the new guy, because they don't want anyone "in their market". http://ci.harrisonville.mo.us/archives/31/020606%20Minutes.pdf http://www.ci.harrisonville.mo.us/archives/31/022106%20Minutes.pdf So as we see it's not always as easy as just trying deal with just City Hall & and handful of morons in the local community or on the local airport board, when there are other forces within the industry working against the betterment of the sport by spreading lies and misinformation and trying to unravel the many hours and USPA membership dues money spent, that USPA's government Relations office has invested geared towards the betterment of the sport for all of skydiving. Your question was: QuoteWhat do you need Wm., how can WE SKYDIVERS help you with your fight? Those who truly wish to help an access fight can do many things to help out, first and for most is give your money to the USPA AAD fund and learn how it really works, many jumpers are clueless how it works, however without that fund, guys like Pat Garcia would have had to spend another 9K on his part 16 case, a major victory for all of skydiving. The other things jumpers can do is to write polite and well worded truthful letters to the news paper stories, as number of you already have, and to write to the Cities where access cases are being fought to express your support of the FAA approved aeronautical activity, skydiving. Another good thing to do is to support the local businesses that support the skydiving operators, wal-mart don't care, but mom & pop stores do care, spend your money there and let them know your from the DZ, fill up your gas tank before leaving town, even if you only need a little, buy gas, food, beer & lodging on the local level, be sure to let the locals know if your from out of town, let them know how much you enjoyed your visit to their town. Most of all show respect to the local pilots and other airport users and keep in check your stupid human tricks. Read and understand the FAR's and airport compliance. Advisory Circular 105.2d Sport parachuting http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20105-2D.pdf FAA order 5190.6B airport compliance manual http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/ Advisory Circular 150/5190-6 Exclusive rights at Federally-Obligated Airports http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3df9402e6cae52048625725d00699cb2/$FILE/150_5190_6.pdf Advisory Circular 150/5190-7 Minimum standards for commercial aeronautical activities http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf Advisory Circular 90-66A: Recommended Standard traffic patterns & practices for aeronautical operations @ airports without operating control towers http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf The thing to keep in mind, is skydiver are our one worst enemy a great deal of the time in our actions & comments and you MUST keep it in check and remain professional at all times in your dealings with city leaders and the FAA. (not always easy to do) In the very near future there will a "notice of proposed rule change" issued by the FAA, all the public are free to comment on that and we as skydivers need to do so to make our voices heard in a educated and professional manner, if you can not handle doing that, then keep quite. When this NOPRC is issued you will know & hear about it. Again if your going to write, call or email anyone, be respectful, truthful, factual & polite! http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissioners Mailing address: City Hall, PO Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044 Mayor: Aron E. Cromwell [email protected] Bob Schumm [email protected] Michael Dever [email protected] Hugh Carter [email protected] Mike Amyx [email protected]you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #22 November 20, 2011 Quote And he has made many claims along with the City that there is just too much traffic @ KLWC to allow skydiving operations there. These claims have been made repeatedly to the FAA by the city. Yet according to this news story written on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, that starting in 2008 the traffic has dropped off to "emptier skies over Lawrence". As you can clearly see they are trying to have both ways. In this case, the 'marketing' ploy of the FBO or the city is not going to work. The FAA doesn't operate on anyone's 'word' with regard to airport operations, and they certainly won't disperse funds for airport improvements based on that. The city will have to provide documented proof of the number of airport operations if they expect any money out of the FAA, and that proof will settle the claim of 'too much traffic'. This is one area where the FAA is a benefit to jumpers, in that unilke many other issues that are decieded in city council, popularity and 'marketing' will have nothing to do with the outcome. No offence to Lawrence, KS, but the FAA doesn't give two shits about Lawrence, KS, or what happens there. They're simply going to look at the facts like the number of operations, the type of operations, and the size of the field, and compare them to existing airports. They'll make a determination as to allow (or not) skydiving, and tie that into the dispersement of federal funds. If the FAA can't see a good LOGICAL reason (not just that some locals don't like the idea), then they'll require the city to allow skydiving if they expect the money they're after. They are tyring to play both sides of the coin, but the FAA isn't going to go for it. Being a federal organization, there's no emotion or sentiment that's going to play into the matter. The locals can spin shit all they want at this stage, in the end, city council will have no effect on the FAA. They have the money and they have the power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #23 November 20, 2011 Many skydivers think that no one notices what goes on in our world. In my many meetings with the city of Oceanside, CA I have heard from the city attorney and city planners about recent fatal incidents, aircraft maintenance issues and other assorted detrimemtal opinions towards our sport. When you fill out your renewal form for USPA membership, add a few clams to the Airport Access Defense Fund. My own fight has included about 500 phone calls with Randy Ottinger, many meetings with the city and finally the hiring of a land use attorney. Unfortunatly the FAA makes the aeronautical user prove to the sponsor their right to access the airport under the Airport Compliance Manual rules. A Part 16 formal process is long, involved and expensive. Airport access is a major issue for our sport. It's up to all of us to help out each battle if we can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #24 November 20, 2011 QuoteAirport access is a major issue for our sport. It's up to all of us to help out each battle if we can. I'd agree completely ~ my home DZ was booted off an Airport just this year, all because some Good-ol boys on the Airport Board wanted to land their aircraft without radios and didn't want anything else in their little airspace. Unfortunatly, this Airport didn't accept any Federal Funds....=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #25 November 21, 2011 Hi SS We used to do the skydiving $$$ thing (stamping $2 bills with canopy or airplane) in lots of places to let them know where their getting some of their business from. To bad it not time yet to paper Lawrence with the stuff.FWIW while reading the letters at the end of one airport access the Main McNasty has made at least one quote from a incident report DZ.com. I bet McNasty wont be quoting the up thread comment about the additinal air traffic from Nascar and KU games. NOT!!! K-RIP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
